Author Topic: He177 Bad Bad Bad.  (Read 1007 times)

Offline Wilbus

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4472
He177 Bad Bad Bad.
« Reply #15 on: February 19, 2002, 07:15:57 AM »
Yha, installation was so bad it almost looked intentional. Huge number of planes were lost due to fires, other then that, it was a pretty damn good heavy bomber, had some successful missions.
Rasmus "Wilbus" Mattsson

Liberating Livestock since 1998, recently returned from a 5 year Sheep-care training camp.

Offline oboe

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9805
He177 Bad Bad Bad.
« Reply #16 on: February 19, 2002, 08:15:18 AM »
I think this Viper guy is a troll.   Nobody makes that many spelling mistakes in a single post.

Offline illo

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 374
He177 Bad Bad Bad.
« Reply #17 on: February 19, 2002, 09:00:08 AM »
Yup he177 is nice bomber in virtual skies. It gave balance to WB freehost.
Mg151/20 in tail eliminates all low 6 attacks before they even start. He177 is quite fast and VERY good looking with its wide wings. :D

It forced allied pilots to learn some tactics to attack buff.

I think it would be one of best bombers in AH if implemented.

Offline Viper17

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 711
He177 Bad Bad Bad.
« Reply #18 on: February 19, 2002, 09:54:54 AM »
Ok for one im not a TROLL im a sped kid. My problem is with spelling. For 1 I do Fly the 88 in the MA. I rarly if everget shot down in it. I handels PROBIBLY like if not beter then the ME110. You can Destroy a Fighter hanger or a VH in one hit. Then you can fly it like a fighter. Please dont turn this into a beat-up-on-Viper because of his spelling. Then by the time the B-29 made it to Japan all bugs were worked out.:o

Offline Charon

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3705
He177 Bad Bad Bad.
« Reply #19 on: February 19, 2002, 03:34:16 PM »
Quote
I find the statement about the blatimore quite laughable.


Just like Germany's strategic bombing campaign. Yes, german bombers like the Ju-88, He-111, Do-17/217 and the percentage of 177s that completed missions and percentage of Ju-188s that were not recon platforms did serve a useful tactical role, and even flew the occasional strategic mission. But there wasn't a strategic bombing campaign. Even the Blitz wasn't a strategic bombing campaign. In fact, to have a successful strategic bombing campaign against Ural or North American targets, Germany would have had to develop an aircraft of B-36 proportions. Just didn't happen.

If you add up the number of Ju-188s and He-177 that were fielded operationally as bombers, and look at what they were used for, well, you're back at the Martin Baltimore. Now, don't make me bring up the A-20 or B-25 :)

Quote
How may B-29 prototypes caught fire during testing?  Or while flying over Japan?


How many Japanes cites were burned to ash by B-29s? It's a bit counter productive to compare the thousands of operational B-29s that flew missions from 1944 onwards to the service career of the He-177. That comparison highlights what a footnote the He-177 actually was. It's strange that the Russians chose to make a virtually identical copy of the B-29 and its engines instead of the He-177 -- obviously they just couldn't get a handle on how to manufacture the He-177s war-winning dive brake system :)

However, for the role players who can't stomach flying an allied bomber, and for the CT where there is a significant imbalance -- AH "needs" a German "heavy bomber." It might as well be the He-177 or Ju-188.

Charon
« Last Edit: February 19, 2002, 03:37:54 PM by Charon »

Offline Staga

  • Parolee
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5334
      • http://www.nohomersclub.com/
He177 Bad Bad Bad.
« Reply #20 on: February 19, 2002, 03:48:29 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Charon

In fact, to have a successful strategic bombing campaign against Ural or North American targets, Germany would have had to develop an aircraft of B-36 proportions. Just didn't happen.
 


uhm yes it did happen.

Offline Staga

  • Parolee
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5334
      • http://www.nohomersclub.com/
He177 Bad Bad Bad.
« Reply #21 on: February 19, 2002, 03:50:58 PM »
For Charon  ;)

Messerschmitt Me 264
Strategic bomber. The Me 264 could lift 39400l of fuel and 1800kg of bombs for an attack on the USA -- merely of propaganda importance. Drawings were made for a jet-engined development and even a coal-fuelled version was considered. Only two were built.
Type: Me 264
Function: bomber
Year: 1943 Crew: 6 Engines: 4 * 1410hp Junkers Jumo 211-J
Speed: 565km/h Ceiling: Range: 14000km

http://users.visi.net/~djohnson/prototyp/me264.html

Edit: Added link and taunt :p
« Last Edit: February 19, 2002, 03:56:23 PM by Staga »

Offline Charon

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3705
He177 Bad Bad Bad.
« Reply #22 on: February 19, 2002, 03:59:15 PM »
Staga, didn't it fly within sight of New York once and turn back? I have always wondered why they didn't make a Doolittle Raid out of it, at least to tie down US air defenses for a period of time.

Even in greater numbers it would have have had the same general range and payload limitations that the B-29 would have faced trying to bomb Germany from the USA. I suppose the Pennsylvania steel works [edit: and I think there was some petroleum production and refining as well] would have been vulnurable, but not much else.

Charon
« Last Edit: February 19, 2002, 04:09:48 PM by Charon »

Offline Raubvogel

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3882
He177 Bad Bad Bad.
« Reply #23 on: February 19, 2002, 04:06:13 PM »
Supposedly it flew to within 12 miles of New York undetected.

Offline Charon

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3705
He177 Bad Bad Bad.
« Reply #24 on: February 19, 2002, 04:06:29 PM »
Great link. Hilarious powerplant option.

Quote
Perhaps the most unusual powerplant idea was for a steam turbine that was to develop over 6000 horsepower and drive a 5.334 meter (17' 6") diameter airscrew. Fuel would have been in a mixture of powdered coal and petroleum. the main advantages to this engine would be constant power at all altitudes and simple maintenance.


I wonder how much water it would have to haul around?

Charon

Offline Staga

  • Parolee
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5334
      • http://www.nohomersclub.com/
He177 Bad Bad Bad.
« Reply #25 on: February 19, 2002, 04:20:22 PM »
Remember old Hughes (AFAIR) steam-car prototypes from hmm... maybe thirties? After steam was used in cylinders it was cooled back to liquid in condensers inside of the doors etc. One of the reasons that car never passed prototype status was it was too dangerous for passengers in a car crash or leak in pressurised condenser system. Guess they thought people wouldn't like to be boiled in a crash...

Edit:
Uups, guess that car was Doble...
http://detnews.com/AUTOS/9605/22/mirror/mirror.htm
« Last Edit: February 19, 2002, 04:23:21 PM by Staga »

Offline Sachs

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 570
      • http://where?
He177 Bad Bad Bad.
« Reply #26 on: February 19, 2002, 05:00:57 PM »
Just like Germany's strategic bombing campaign. Yes, german bombers like the Ju-88, He-111, Do-17/217 and the percentage of 177s that completed missions and percentage of Ju-188s that were not recon platforms did serve a useful tactical role, and even flew the occasional strategic mission.

Define strategic?
Hitting railheads, troops concentrations, railways, airfields and such these are not strategic?  DId they do it enmass as the allies?  No they didn't Germany's doctrine was the blitzkrieg, when that stalled and Russia was pushing them back they really had no use for a heavy bomber anymore.  

But there wasn't a strategic bombing campaign. Even the Blitz wasn't a strategic bombing campaign. In fact, to have a successful strategic bombing campaign against Ural or North American targets, Germany would have had to develop an aircraft of B-36 proportions. Just didn't happen.

If you add up the number of Ju-188s and He-177 that were fielded operationally as bombers, and look at what they were used for, well, you're back at the Martin Baltimore. Now, don't make me bring up the A-20 or B-25  

Don't make me bring up the numbers as well, how many planes did the germans shoot down?  What were the odds again? The Ju-88 series was the best twin engine plane in that war period, as a bomber night fighter or recon it excelled in each role.  The He-177 only true enemy was its engine's I agree not fighters.  When they start implementing the real affects of the engines and the quirks of each plane, what will out AH skies look like?  Bunch of C-47's flying around.   No more N1k's, no more pull the lead out of my bellybutton 50 cals spraying forever, face it if we want cpmplete realism there wopuldn't be to many people flying.  Who wants to pay for when you are flying 30 minutes into the flight your in a low alt dogfight and your engine seizes?  


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How may B-29 prototypes caught fire during testing? Or while flying over Japan?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



How many Japanes cites were burned to ash by B-29s? It's a bit counter productive to compare the thousands of operational B-29s that flew missions from 1944 onwards to the service career of the He-177. That comparison highlights what a footnote the He-177 actually was. It's strange that the Russians chose to make a virtually identical copy of the B-29 and its engines instead of the He-177 -- obviously they just couldn't get a handle on how to manufacture the He-177s war-winning dive brake system  


Payload my friend payload.  Tu-4 nuclear capable.

However, for the role players who can't stomach flying an allied bomber, and for the CT where there is a significant imbalance -- AH "needs" a German "heavy bomber." It might as well be the He-177 or Ju-188.


Not for the role players, each country should be represented is all we are asking.  He-177 was produced in modest numbers for a german heavy bomber, same goes for the DO-217.
Charon

Offline midnight Target

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15114
He177 Bad Bad Bad.
« Reply #27 on: February 19, 2002, 05:10:27 PM »
I submit the following for thought:

The German equivilant of the heavy strategic bomber was called a U-boat.
« Last Edit: February 20, 2002, 10:47:28 AM by midnight Target »

Offline Charon

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3705
He177 Bad Bad Bad.
« Reply #28 on: February 19, 2002, 07:46:21 PM »
Tah Gut, you're thinking too much here :)

Ok,
Quote
Define strategic? Hitting railheads, troops concentrations, railways, airfields and such these are not strategic?  


Tactical and/or interdiction, not strategic. German bomber forces did the best they could with what they had to work with (equipment and operational disadvantages). Still, they never achieved the level of dominance the allies achieved before D-day in all these areas. Did the allies’ numbers play a role? Of course, but so what? It was a real war and not a Hollywood movie, and the allies delivered victory.

Quote
DId they do it enmass as the allies? No they didn't Germany's doctrine was the blitzkrieg, when that stalled and Russia was pushing them back they really had no use for a heavy bomber anymore.


Can't argue here. Germany never had the resources to match the allies in such areas anyway. Tactical operations of lesser and lesser significance, and the ability to apply only local air superiority, were unavoidable outcomes after a quick victory failed in Russia.

Quote
Don't make me bring up the numbers as well, how many planes did the germans shoot down? What were the odds again?


I'm not sure I follow this one. Is this a reference to the individual scores of the Top scoring German fighter pilots? If so, I'm frankly surprised the numbers weren't higher. For most of the war they flew in a defensive manner either over the homeland or over the front, where capture wasn't assured in a shoot down; they were not taken out of combat after a handful of combat missions; they had some leeway about pressing an engagement against the odds (fighter sweeps on the Russian front spring to mind); they fought the initial part of the war at an advantage in experience, equipment, tactics (it took the Brits two years to drop the Vic, and the Americans a year to pull our heads out of our rectum with the P-38 and P-47); they could actually find enemy aircraft to shoot at; and they were able to achieve local air superiority on the Eastern front throughout the war, regardless of the overall odds. I do find Lt. Guenther Scheel's 70 missions/71 victories impressive, though I believe the allies had some pilots with similar kill/sortie ratios. Or maybe it was just those Aryan genetics. In any cases I'll trade victory over individual scores any day of the week.

Quote
The Ju-88 series was the best twin engine plane in that war period, as a bomber night fighter or recon it excelled in each role.


In an apples to apples comparison I would vote for the Mosquito. Arguments could also be made for the B-25, TU-2 and the A-26 based on different, subjective and technological criteria, IMO. The Ju-88 is certainly in the running and a Ju-188 would be a nice addition. A Do-217 would probably be a more historical choice for addition.

Quote
Payload my friend payload. Tu-4 nuclear capable.


And what makes a good strategic bomber, nuclear or otherwise, in 1944-47? Range and advanced performance in speed and altitude (since the typical mission was beyond fighter escort range) while carrying a payload of 10,000 pounds or more. Had the Russians needed a 66,139 lb dive bomber, that went against their philosophy of reliability first, I'm sure they would have produced a copy of the He-177. As it was, they wanted a plane that could win a war.

Quote
Not for the role players, each country should be represented is all we are asking.


As a game concession for the CT, sure. I still don't see why for the MA, since your He-177 is just as likely to be shot down by an FW-190 as anything else. If the Stuka is added I would feel no need to push for an A-24 (ALLIES NEED A DIVE BOMBER). Except, of course, for the fact that the Dauntless changed the course of history in that other little skirmish that was going on at the time.

Sachs, I agree with you. The game needs a German bomber with advanced performance and defensive armament. But, I don't buy into the whole Nazi war machine mythology that always seems to overlook the shortcomings.  

I give the German field commanders/NCOs, and some general staff officers credit for being on the cutting edge (particularly early in the war). Training and morale were also high at the enlisted level (particularly early in the war). Some German equipment was revolutionary, much was average by comparison to its rivals (the early successes in Russia were using the MKIII, not the Panther or Tiger), and some (including the V programs) were pointless wastes of resources. In the end, Hitler was proven conclusively to be a moron, and Germany's Master Race soldiers raised their hands to surrender like those in every other country (except Japan :) ) when the only card left to play was death. The mythology ultimately fails for me because the cause was so totally, morally bankrupt. I can respect a Galland for his skill as a combat leader or Hartmann for his skill and precision as a pilot, but I can never admire them for actively helping to propagate such enormous suffering. [edit: I can admire the Me109 for its technological features 1939-1943, but understand why it may have had SOME shortcomings compared to aircraft developed 4-5 years later] I have much more admiration for the allied pilot shot down on his first sortie somewhere far from home in his obsolete P-39.

Charon
« Last Edit: February 19, 2002, 08:26:52 PM by Charon »

Offline Montezuma

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 959
He177 Bad Bad Bad.
« Reply #29 on: February 20, 2002, 03:59:22 AM »
AH should add the Stuka as the next German bomber, it would be much more useful in Scenarios and the CT than the He177.

I bet the Stuka would be more popular in the MA than the He177 despite the fact that the Stuka is a death trap.  The call of the siren, few can resist....